Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by the Department of Mines & Geology, State of Punjab, against an order of the National Green Tribunal which upheld the revocation of environmental clearance granted for mining of minor minerals (sand) in a 12.96-hectare area in the river bed of river Satluj. The appellant had obtained environmental clearance under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, based on representations that the land was in the river bed away from the active channel and that replenishment would occur every monsoon. However, upon application for transfer of the clearance to successful bidders, the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority conducted a joint inspection which revealed that many khasra numbers were located in the stream or on agricultural land, and part of the land was under flood protection structures. The authority revoked the clearance, and the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal. The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere, noting that the revocation was based on a joint demarcation report showing ground reality different from what was projected. The Court dismissed the appeals but allowed the appellant to file a fresh application for environmental clearance.
Headnote
A) Environmental Law - Environmental Clearance - Revocation - Misrepresentation of Facts - Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 - The appellant obtained environmental clearance for mining minor minerals in river bed, but joint inspection revealed that some khasra numbers were located in stream or agricultural land, contrary to the information provided. The Supreme Court upheld the revocation, holding that the clearance was based on incorrect information and the ground reality was different from what was projected. (Paras 1-10) B) Environmental Law - Mining - Replenishment - River Bed Mining - Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 - The pre-feasibility report claimed replenishment every monsoon, but joint demarcation showed part of land under private cultivation and flood protection structures, indicating no replenishment. The Court accepted the finding that the land was not suitable for mining as represented. (Paras 5-8) C) Environmental Law - Environmental Clearance - Transfer - Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 - The application for transfer of environmental clearance to successful bidders was rejected due to the revocation. The Court held that the revocation was valid and did not interfere with the Tribunal's order. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the revocation of environmental clearance granted for mining of minor minerals was justified on the ground that the information furnished by the appellant was contrary to ground reality as per joint demarcation report.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the revocation of environmental clearance. However, the appellant was permitted to file a fresh application for environmental clearance which shall be considered on its own merits.
Law Points
- Environmental clearance revocation
- Misrepresentation of facts
- Joint inspection report
- EIA Notification 2006
- Minor minerals mining
.png)
